Mk12 Turrisvs.Project Meta

Sound & Specs Comparison

Information

Both IEMs are widely regarded in the audiophile community. See how they differ in terms of sub-bass response, upper mids, clarity, and overall tonality. Spider charts and rating breakdowns included.

Objective Comparison

Facts, details, stuff.

Meta Ratings

Especially for complex musical passages, Mk12 Turris handles layering and imaging subtly more confidently and precisely. For comfort fit, It performs slightly better (7.3 vs 6.5). The tactile feel and solidity of It suggest noticeably greater robustness and longevity compared to the more fragile impression left by Project Meta. Compared to Mk12 Turris, Project Meta’s cable exhibits markedly smoother handling, with fewer instances of memory or stiffness. It's accessories are evidently better curated, reflecting greater attention to usability, presentation, and value-added content compared to Mk12 Turris.

Sound Characteristics

Mk12 Turris produces sub-bass that is a more textured and present in cinematic or bass-heavy tracks (8.5 vs 6.3). The low-end on It is m more controlled and rhythmic, offering better definition than Project Meta (8 vs 6.3). It translates bass vibrations into a a more visceral experience, while Project Meta lacks this tactile feedback (8.5 vs 6.7). It achieves m better warmth and coherence in the lower mids, bringing more realism to guitars and cellos (9 vs 6.8). In the upper mids, It sounds a clearer and more articulate, highlighting vocals and lead instruments better than Project Meta (8 vs 6.2). The treble on It is s more nuanced and refined, especially when it comes to cymbals and ambient elements (9 vs 7.5). The highest frequencies on It feel a more natural and less rolled-off compared to Project Meta (9 vs 6.8). The stereo field on It feels s wider and more holographic, whereas Project Meta sounds more intimate (8 vs 6.3). It retrieves micro-details m more effectively, revealing nuances that are less apparent in Project Meta (8.5 vs 6.3). Track elements feel m more isolated and clean on It, offering clearer focus than Project Meta (8.5 vs 6.7). Instruments remain intelligible on It even during busy sections, showing a better handling of masking than Project Meta (8.5 vs 6). The note presentation is d fuller and more tactile on It, giving instruments a stronger physical presence than Project Meta (8.5 vs 6.3). Percussion and quick attacks feel a more physical and punchy on It, adding excitement over Project Meta (7.5 vs 6). Listeners may experience a fewer sharp edges in 'S' and 'T' sounds with It, whereas Project Meta can get fatiguing (9.5 vs 6.5). The tone quality of It feels a more organic and true-to-source than the slightly artificial flavor of Project Meta (8.5 vs 6). Tonality on It is s more coherent and refined, yielding a more pleasing overall signature than Project Meta (8.5 vs 6.3). It portrays textures in vocals and strings with a more realism, enhancing emotional depth over Project Meta (8 vs 5.5).

Tonal Signature

// Nothing to compare yet.